contestada

The methods debate that started between L’Épée and Heinicke was an important part of Deaf history. This focused on whether oralism or manualism was the better method for teaching Deaf people how to communicate. Imagine that you had attended the public debate between L’Épée and Heinicke in Zurich. Which “side” would you support? Why?

Respuesta :

michell96

I would support L'Epée because sign language is an efficient communication system and it is easier for deaf people to learn it than to learn how to talk.

Charles-Michel L'Epée and Samuel Heinicke are known for proposing different theories about education for deaf people. These theories present different approaches or perspectives.

Heinicke supported oral education or oralism, which means he taught his students to talk and understand others by using techniques such as lipreading or touching one's throat to produce the correct sounds.

On the other hand, L'Epée supported the use of signs and gestures (manualism) that could allow deaf people to communicate. Based on this, he developed a sign system for the French language.

Each of these two perspectives has been supported or rejected based on different reasons. However, based on my perspective the best approach is L'Epée because:

  • Sign language is efficient for communication.
  • Deaf people should not be forced to "talk" because this is not a natural process in them and can be quite challenging and inefficient.

Learn more in: https://brainly.com/question/23284198

Otras preguntas